[TinyTree]

Steven Millhauser wrote a book called "Martin Dressler" which won the Pulitzer prize. It is excellent writing. If you don't want any plot give aways, don't read any further, but I recommend it as a read.

Anyway, the book as a whole reminds me a lot of "The Theory of Everything". In fact, I would go so far as to say that he is writing the book as a theory of everything,although I am not quite sure what it is, but it is related to the notion of progress, change, and advancement. The protagonist in the book is interested in building grander and grander hotels, each one surpassing the last- and each one becoming more and more of complete living place. In fact, his last hotel, called the "Grand Cosmo" has living quarters, working quarters, the entire history of civilization built into different floors, the history of technology, aquaducts, everything. It really is, everything that can be crammed into a hotel (which reaches into the sky like a gargauntuan pillar of everything).

Here are some quotes from the book. The protagonist has hired an advertising man, Harwinton, who is coming up with ads for the Grand Cosmo. Here is what he says about him:

"And Martin was startled: it was as if Harwinton had divined his love for the bridge, as if the image of the bridge suddenly bound him to Harwinton. Was it possible that even Harwinton felt the power of the bridge? But Harwinton, if he felt anything,felt it as a private citizen; as an advertising man he saw the world as a great blankness, a collection of meaningless signs into which he breathed meaning. Then you might say that Harwinton was God. That would explain why he never grew old. The thought interested Martin: he was having a ham sandwich and a cup of cofee with the Lord God, King of the Universe, a youthful American god with light blue eyes and blond lashes. But of course God could not believe in the Grand Cosmo, just as He could not believe in the universe, a blankness without meaning, except as it streamed from Him. For only human creatures believed in things, that much was clear."

Now that particular paragraph actually contains a number of unique and powerful opinions, which I will address a couple of here:

1) The paragraph is slightly contradictory. He first claims that god sees the world as a great blankness without meaning, and that man imbues the meaning on it. But then he says that Harwinton is imbuing the meaning on the world through his advertisements, and in fact implies that this drawing forth of meaning from the eclectic nature of reality is what is the God part of Harwinton. I am not sure what he means here, but both ideas, although contradictory in nature, are interesting.

2) Thinking that only human creatures believe in things seems a bit off. For my dog would look forward to great expectation to shared joys- eating a bit of cheese, going for a walk. These were all imbued meanings on reality, given by the dog. The only sense I can fathom that humans have a unique way to imbue meaning is through our natural language- that is we can come up with a consensual opinion about reality by discussing it. Other animals can not discuss it (although can come up with an agreed upon opinion, such as certain food is bad, through body language and grunts)